Cities Facing Biggest Housing Risks (Tampa No. 7) (Jacksonville, Miami: real estate market, foreclosures)

[craigm1841]

EDIT: Table is not maintaining its integrity when I hit "Post" Go to the link to see the table.

Which Cities Face Biggest Housing Risks?


Four years into the U.S. housing bust some communities hardest hit initially remained under stress in 2009, particularly in California and Florida, according to recently released data from U.S. Census Bureau.
[Click here to check home loan rates in your area.]

Real Time Economics has worked up a simple housing-stress indicator for most of the major U.S. metropolitan areas that combines three factors — the fraction of mortgage-holding homeowners in a community with a monthly housing payment in excess of 30% of income, the percentage of all people in the region without health insurance and the fraction of the population without a job. The indicator uses 2009 data from Census's American Community Survey.

Within more than 500 metro areas, the top 20 most stressed include nine in California and six in Florida, where the housing bust has been particularly acute. Among the most populous cities, Miami tops the list, followed by California's Inland Empire, Los Angeles and San Diego.

California and Florida ranked third and fourth, respectively, in foreclosure rates in the third quarter, according to real-estate web site RealtyTrac. Nevada, which has the nation's highest foreclosure rate (1 in every 23 households), and No. 2 Arizona also are well represented on the list. Among the 49 most populous cities in the nation, Las Vegas has the fifth highest stress index number, Phoenix is 11th.

Financial advisers warn against spending more than 30% of a household's income on housing costs, as it can crimp other expenditures and savings. It also leaves little room for unexpected shocks to income, such as illness or unemployment. Miami was at the top because it had the highest percentage of mortgage holders spending more than 30% on housing among large metro areas — 57.7% compared to the national average of 37.5%. At the same time, a quarter of the city's residents are without health insurance — compared to the national average of 15% — making it difficult to deal with a the expense created by an illness and still pay a mortgage.

[How To Buy a Home at a $100,000 Discount]
The problems also can feed on one another. A housing bust can lead to unemployment as construction and other real-estate related jobs dry up, which then pushes more people into foreclosure. For example, Redding, Calif., has more than half of its mortgage holders paying more than 30% for housing, a 2.7 percentage point increase from 2007, as the ratio of unemployed-to-population in the city jumped six percentage points over that time to 41.6%, compared to a national average of 33.1%.

To be sure, a high level of income can make crossing the 30% threshold of housing costs-to-income less risky for a borrower. New York, for example, is in the top 10 for the housing-stress indicator among the 49 most populous cities, but the percentage of people without health insurance and unemployment are both below the national averages in the region. The New York area has one of the highest median incomes in the nation, allowing residents to apportion more to housing while maintaining wiggle room to deal with other expenses.

Continued stress, especially in the prime markets for foreclosures, could mean more trouble ahead for housing, which has recently showed signs of stabilization. Indeed, Fannie Mae has reported that since the Census data were collected in 2009, the number of mortgages delinquent for more than 90 days has started to drop. But past-due mortgages remain at extemely high levels, and some of the decline over the course of 2010 was accompanied by a rise in foreclosures, as moratoriums in several states expired.

Below is a chart of the 49 most populous U.S. metro areas with their stress readings and components, sorted by the cities with the highest housing-stress indicator to the least.


Metro AreaSpending >30% of Income on HousingWithout Health InsurancePopulation Not WorkingHousing-Stress IndicatorUnited States, average37.5%15.1%33.1%85.7Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL57.7%25.6%33.3%116.6Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA54.3%20.5%39.5%114.3Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA54.3%21.5%33.5%109.3San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA53.9%17.0%36.4%107.3Las Vegas-Paradise, NV49.6%22.3%32.2%104.1Orlando-Kissimmee, FL47.6%21.2%32.6%101.4Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL46.6%18.5%34.4%99.5Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA48.4%12.6%35.4%96.4San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA50.5%12.3%31.6%94.4New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA48.8%12.9%32.2%93.9Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ41.3%17.9%33.5%92.7San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA50.2%11.9%30.6%92.7Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI39.0%12.9%39.1%91New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA38.0%18.8%33.7%90.5Jacksonville, FL40.0%16.8%33.3%90.1Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI42.9%14.4%31.9%89.2Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC42.1%11.7%34.6%88.4Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA36.5%19.2%32.4%88.1Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX32.2%24.6%31.1%87.9Memphis, TN-MS-AR35.9%16.3%35.4%87.6Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA40.9%14.8%31.3%87Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX32.0%24.0%29.6%85.6Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA43.0%12.1%29.9%85San Antonio, TX30.1%20.0%34.4%84.5Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA42.9%9.0%29.9%81.8Austin-Round Rock, TX31.6%20.5%27.7%79.8Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH35.2%11.5%32.7%79.4Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD37.4%10.0%31.7%79.1Richmond, VA34.1%12.8%31.5%78.4Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO35.0%15.3%27.3%77.6Birmingham-Hoover, AL31.0%12.3%34.2%77.5Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC31.7%15.7%30.1%77.5Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV38.3%11.0%27.2%76.5Baltimore-Towson, MD36.8%10.1%29.4%76.3Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN32.4%13.3%30.5%76.2Oklahoma City, OK26.4%17.9%30.6%74.9Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI35.3%9.9%28.6%73.8Columbus, OH30.6%12.7%30.1%73.4Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH40.2%4.7%27.6%72.5Indianapolis-Carmel, IN28.2%13.6%29.9%71.7Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT35.5%7.6%28.4%71.5Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN27.5%12.4%31.6%71.5Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN28.1%11.8%30.9%70.8St. Louis, MO-IL29.7%10.5%30.4%70.6Rochester, NY29.4%7.9%31.9%69.2Kansas City, MO-KS27.6%13.2%27.8%68.6Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI34.7%9.1%24.7%68.5Pittsburgh, PA28.1%8.6%31.0%67.7Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY27.8%7.9%31.2%66.9



Credit:

by Phil Izzo
Tuesday, October 5, 2010



which-cities-face-biggest-housing-risks: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

[algia]

FORGET this crap...NONE of these articles talk about the actual EMPLOYMENT here and how it lacks! NOR any of them talk about the fact that Florida/Tampa does NOT have the same industries like other places, so they are keep judging us by this damn construction industry when in fact Florida/Tampa is full of service jobs who pay NOTHING! You try and own a house in a decent area at $7 an hour! Good luck and no cheating with extra incomes from other things or spouses!

They talk about Miami being first? well here's the thing, in Miami you can't find an administrative job that pays more than $9 an hour! Who (other than a single 19 year old living with his/her parents) can afford to live off of that? and guess what, the same job was listed with the same $9 an hour in 2001. People have student loans to pay not to mention a million other expenses. Since 2001 lots of things have increased in price, salaries have not, they can write these articles all they want, they are useless and misinformed! Florida is not known for being an industrial state! we have a space program soon to be closed, a few larger companies and then you have service jobs who don't pay enough for someone to cover everything they need to cover in order to own a home. A home comes with a million strings attached. Until employers start hiring and PAYING employees, housing market will not improve. Sorry. It is JUST that simple.

[housingcrashsurvivor]

Here ya go

http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad99/housingcrashsurvivor/Untitled-1-2.jpg (broken link)

Even within Tampa, real estate markets are still somewhat localized. So some areas of Tampa Bay could be more susceptible to further drops than others.

I'm currently studying whether I want to purchase more property here. In doing so, I'm looking to see what areas might be overvalued still and what areas seem undervalued. I'm basing this on 1999/2000 prebubble fundamentals of price to income & price to rent ratios. Before then things were stable for most of the 1990s. But right about then is when housing went crazy here and throughout much of the western world.

Possibly I'll show here in some detail what I've learned about the Tampa Bay area, by neighborhood. But just to say now that the differences just within Tampa Bay are striking. For instance, so far I've found areas like Temple Terrace & Greater Carrollwood selling below bottom. But Tampa (the incorporated city as a whole) is still way overpriced, by as much as 50plus%, indicating about a 35% correction down still possible.

How is the city of Tampa still so overpriced? In 1999 the median income was $40,517 and the median home price was $81,500 ($103,324 in 2010 $s) so the income to price ratio was 2.01:1. In other words, it took 2.01 x's annual median household (not per capita) income to buy a median priced home there.

Today the median priced home in the city of Tampa is $141,600 & the median income (stat as of 2008) is about $45,224. (Never mind all the unemployed & overextended which I'm not even figuring into this.) So today the price to income ratio is 3.13:1, which is 55.7% higher than it was before the bubble started.

PS. Just to show how very overrpiced the City of Tampa still is. Based on the previously stable prebubble price to income ratio, the income today (which has remained mostly stagnant since then) indicates a median home price of $91,000, 12% under where even normal inflation would have set home values hadn't the bubble ever occurred. What a disaster.

Further, the median rent in the city of Tampa was $577 in 2000 ($731 cpi adjusted to 2010 $s), indicating a prebubble ratio of 11.77:1. Today, the price to rent ratio is 14.63:1 which shows home prices 24% inflated. Not as bad as what the income ratio shows, but still indicating that something's going to give.

[Pragmaticus]

No surprise to me. Ain't new news either.